Senate Gun Control

That and he was shooting in a residential neighborhood. Did he think another round of rubber bullets wouldn't do the job? I don't have an issue so much with him firing the rubber rounds, but the live round was excessive and dangerous.

Is Evergreen built up near a mountain range or mountainous area(most of Co is that way but I don't know)?

Once again, humans take away habitat from animals and then freak out when they actually come back around to their old stomping grounds.

We have this problem in Northern Utah on the Wasatch Front. People build houses above "the benches"(the old erosion line worn by Lake Bonneville and the fault line of the Wasatch). People build homes above there and then freak out when deer eat their shrubs. Where did you build your damn house? You built it on their Winter range.

I'm not opposed to development but people need to learn to be a little more rational. Guy should have just used the rubber bullets and left it at that. They likely would have ran the hell off after getting a few of those blasted into their hides.

 

Yeah, Evergreen is a mountainous area.... not deep, deep in the Rockies, but a mountainous area.

 

You'd think that if you lived in a mountainous area near bears then you would have learned a few tricks about scaring bears away without resorting to Rambo style execution tactics. Bang pots and pans, use a hose, yell, wave your arms, play Nickelback loudly.... These are kinds of people that end up shooting innocent people who were reaching for their mobile phone.

 

My grandmother lives in the Northwoods of Wisconsin. The neighbours shoot their guns at everything. I was there a month once, and her next door neighbour was shooting bears. At 2 AM. It's asinine. (It was also illegal, might I add...)

But he could see nothing, as it was pitch black. The neighbourhood isn't exactly deserted, despite it being all Northwoods. There are pubs and such open late. People often come home late throughout the week, since they're on vacation or retired. We were both worried it wasn't a bear he was shooting at.

Even if it was a bear, if people live in an area where there is wildlife and they get annoyed by wildlife enough to shoot it, maybe they should be the ones moving.

 

Well, seeing that the live ammo passed through the bear cubs and into a neighbors house, he easily could have hit a person.

Too bad for the cubs though.

Play Nickelback loudly LostOnHoth That might encourage the bears to attack!

 

The thing is, bears rarely (if ever) attack dogs. My friend lives in Evergreen and her dog kind of 'plays' with bears... chases them up trees, etc. So, his "I was worried about my dog" excuse is flimsy, at best. Mountain lions attack and eat dogs, but not bears. This guy must not be a Colorado native if he doesn't know how to get bears off his property without killing them.

 

This is going to be long, and respond to a lot of people.

Until it's repealed, it's the law of the land, and any gun control proposal has to deal with that fact.

Show me one poster here who has advocated for gun control who has also shown any recognition or respect for the fact that it is an enumerated constitutional right. Essentially, every proposal has wanted to regulate the right to keep and bear arms out of existence by imposing draconian burdens on law-abiding citizens (burdens that criminals wouldn't be affected by). Calls for Australian-style bans on the most common firearms in the US simply aren't realistic. Banning handguns is outright unconstitutional (per Heller). Imposing large fees or costs (such as taxes) on the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right is also unconstitutional.

Unless any of you can recognize and respect the fact that the Second Amendment exists and isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future, none of your proposals can go anywhere, because you are starting from a position of bad faith.

No, you aren't dealing with the legal reality. If your response to a constitutional right is to try and regulate it out of existence, then you aren't respecting that right. How do you expect to get any support for any proposals that might earn some sort of common ground? Your attitude makes is clear that you are coming from a position of bad faith, where your only goal is to deny an existing right to others. As long as gun control supporters refuse to acknowledge the reality that the Second Amendment exists and isn't going away, and so any proposal needs to respect that it is the law of the land, no progress can be made on this issue at all.

As a librarian, would you agree to proposals from someone who refused to recognize the right to free speech or a free press? Would you accept the idea of banning some books because they are "too dangerous", and have encouraged people to commit acts of violence? Somehow, based on your previous comments on such issues, I doubt it. And why not? Because you would see banning those books as a direct assault on a fundamental right.

There is no way to know that, but we can look at data for what happened after NICS came online. Crime rates peaked in 1993, and the Brady Bill (requiring the background checks) was passed that same year, but didn't go into effect until 1994. The Brady Bill required a 5-day waiting period for local law enforcement to perform a background check, but it also created the National Instant Check System (NICS), with the provision that once NICS came online the waiting period would expire. NICS came online in 1998. (The requirement for local law enforcement to perform background checks was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as commandeering the local governments.)

Crime rates started dropping before the Brady Bill took effect, and continued to drop at a more-or-less constant rate through the time that the interim requirements were in place, and continued to drop after NICS came online at the same rate. The introduction of background checks made no statistical difference in the rate at which crime was falling. Most experts tie the high crime at the time to the crack cocaine epidemic which was already starting to wane when the Brady Bill was passed. (Crime was simultaneously falling at about the same rate in other countries, which suggests that background checks were not the cause of the decrease in the US.)

There is no significant evidence that background checks had an effect on crime rates.

But at what cost?

You might, just might, have an argument if the background checks were essentially free and instantaneous. But that isn't the case. Most FFLs charge on the order of $20-30 to perform a transfer, which includes

1. the FFL taking possession of the firearm
2. entering it into his "bound book"
3. having the recipient fill out a for 4473 (and sometimes a state form, too)
4. entering the information from form 4473 into the NICS system
5. waiting for a response (sometimes taking hours)
6. recording the recipient's information in the bound book
7. the recipient taking possession of the firearm

On top of that, by law private citizens are prohibited from directly accessing NICS. The only way to have such a check performed is through a licensed entity with access to NICS.

How is placing that sort of requirement on two friends at the range wanting to try each others' guns "reasonable"? (Keep in mind that by "the range" I am including impromptu ranges on private land, or use of public lands as impromptu ranges, as is common in places like Arizona and Utah.) It would increase the record keeping burden of FFLs almost exponentially, and would create a significant barrier to entry for anyone thinking of trying shooting for the first time. A simple trip to the range, that used to cost on the order of $50 per person for ammo (and range time, at a commercial range) would blossom to costing hundreds of dollars real quickly. A firearm training class for a beginner, which used to cost on the order of $50-100 would become far more expensive if you wanted the beginner to try (or even just handle) a variety of firearms to see what they like best.

Since the universal background check law was passed in Washington State, it's barely been enforced. At last I checked, there had been no prosecutions under the new law, with many law enforcement officers outright saying that it is unenforceable.

And new laws will make no difference if the existing laws aren't enforced. If the ATF is only prosecuting about two dozen people every year for lying on their form 4473, then either the vast majority of denials are false positives, or the ATF is simply not enforcing the existing law. (Every FFL I have ever dealt with has reviewed the form 4473 before submitting it to NICS, and if there's an answer to one of the questions that would lead to a denial, they tend to warn the buyer about it, and don't submit the form or continue with the sale. If there are 70000 denials a year, a good portion are going to have to be either false positives, or a lot of liars out there.) If most of those are false positives, then NICS is a very expensive program to only stop two dozen criminals each year (around $100 million for FY2014).

Why should a program that isn't producing results be expanded?

What value are those "constitutional protections" if they are heavily restricted at all levels of government? And guns are more regulated at all levels of government than cars are. More on that in a moment.

What state requires a person to renew their driver's license annually? Do you really consider the minimal testing that they do for a driver's license to be "extensive"? Most people can pass the test after a quick look through the free book that they provide, and they can take the test as many times as it takes for them to pass. Even the required driving test isn't "extensive".

If cars were regulated like guns, your driver's license would only be valid in your home state, with the possibility that other states might recognize it (but might not). In some states, the DMV could decide that you don't have "good cause" to drive a car, and reject your application for a license. In New York State, your license would be good everywhere except New York City, which issues its own licenses and doesn't issue them to non-residents.

Car dealers would have to be licensed by the federal government, and car manufacturers would have to be registered with the State Department under ITAR regulations. Cars that aren't street legal would be illegal, including farm vehicles and race cars. In order to sell your car to someone else, you would have to meet them at a federally-licensed car dealer and pay the dealer to sell the car to the buyer. Cars with features that might make them look "too fast" (such as spoilers or air intakes on the hood) would be banned. Large capacity cars (like full-sized vans, buses, etc) would be restricted in some states to only government operators.

I can go on and on, if you like.

Just because something can be regulated doesn't mean that any regulation is fair game. For other fundamental rights, regulation has to be narrowly tailored to specific government interests, and even then it cannot create an excessive burden on the underlying right. Why should this right be any different?

And, if you actually read the history of that comment, you would see that he said it in a dissenting opinion in a case that is still binding precedent on the matter of free speech. That hardly makes it persuasive precedent to cite.

 

So, Kimball_Kinnison - what do you think of the man who killed two bear cubs by firing a live round that went through a neighbor's window? Do you believe he should be convicted of a felony and have his permit/license revoked?

 

For goodness' sake, Harps, where would we be if we started taking people's guns away just because of a few stray rounds? We'd be without this guy for a start.



Is that what you want? Really? I suppose you'll want to start banning tight britches next.

 

False, dogs are killed by bears every year. Not justifying what that crazy guy did.

 

I'm not sure if a felony is necessarily justified, but at the very least he violated Rule Four of Col. Jeff Cooper's Four Rules for gun safety. Since we don't know if the shots that hit his neighbor's house passed through the bears or whether he just missed, it's likely he also violated Rule Two.

Charging him for the stupidity is justified, but I'm not sure that it should rise to being felonious.

"Sacred and inviolable" are your words, not mine. I have no problem with reasonable regulations, but they have to actually be reasonable, not simply the same old, ineffective gun control wish list that targets law-abiding citizens instead of the criminals.

The reason most gun rights supporters don't trust any of the gun control groups is because they have repeatedly made it clear that their goal is to eliminate our rights, not just restrict those who abuse their rights. If you can't even recognize it as a right and treat it as such, then there can be no middle ground.

Most gun owners are more than willing to help get guns away from criminals, but we resent being treated like criminals ourselves. We are your neighbors, family, coworkers, and your fellow citizens. There are between 60 and 100 million gun-owning households in the US, and only a tiny fraction of a percent of them commit crimes with guns each year.

We are not second-class citizens, and you can't just restrict our rights because of the actions of that fraction of a percent.

No, I don't agree with that. If you look where the highest violent crime rates are in the US, they tend to be where gun ownership is the most restricted. Where private citizens are more able to own and carry guns for protection, crime rates tend to be lower. That suggests that restricting guns is more liable to create the sort of problems that you are complaining about.

Moreover, even if you were to ban the sale of any new guns in the US, there are too many already existing for it to make any significant difference in what would be available to criminals. There is no way to track down and identify all of them. Guns are a durable good, and they take decades (if not centuries) to wear out. Before 1968, guns weren't even required to have serial numbers (although many manufacturers did serialize them). There is no way to get rid of even a significant portion of the 300+ million guns in the US. It's unrealistic to think that you can restrict access to them at this point.

 

Although not directed at me, I'm very enthusiastic about shooting. I like to go to Wimbledon Common to shoot at Wombles. I'm hoping that, one day, Prince Phillip will join me and lighten the day with some banter.

 

I enjoy both shooting and gunsmithing, in a variety of settings and using a variety of targets. I have shot everything from 22 rifles up to a Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in .454 Casull (one of the most powerful handguns made). My current project is building an AR-15 style piston-operated pistol from individual parts, with the plan to eventually get a suppressor for it, mostly to improve hearing protection. I've gone shooting at everything from the NRA's headquarters range (indoors, up to 50 yards) to outdoor ranges, to a friend's backyard makeshift range. I've used a wide variety of targets, ranging from reactive targets (metal plates that get knocked down by a hit and then reset themselves) to paper plates, to human silhouettes (mostly when practicing defensive shooting), to old used propane cans. I've been hunting, but haven't had the opportunity to take any game yet. (The deer are everywhere you look in this area up until you have your permit and rifle in hand on opening day. Then they are like Romulans with cloaking devices.) I'm a pretty good shot (my wife is much better, and has been since she first picked up a handgun on our first date - sure keeps me in line ), but I still have a lot of areas to improve.

Both target shooting and gunsmithing are hobbies that require a lot of discipline, focus, and precision. Contrary to many people's perceptions, it's not as simple as point gun, pull trigger. There are many factors that you have to study and learn to account for, from how the wind or temperature affects a shot, to reducing your own heart rate and breathing to improve accuracy. There are very good reasons why there are several Olympic shooting sports, and they are all very physically demanding.

I find shooting to be very relaxing for several reasons. First, the level of concentration and focus required helps me to clear my head from all of the stress of daily life. The physical exertion to repeatedly control recoil actually provides a good workout for your arms and back, which you can sometimes feel for days. The repeated recoil itself has a relaxing effect. It's also a great way to have a lot of fun with several of my good friends, including one who is confined to a wheelchair. It's a fun challenge to see how tight of a group you can shoot, and sometimes you go for other, quirky challenges (like one friend trying to shoot a smiley face on a target with his .44 Magnum).

In the many years I've been involved with firearms, I have consistently found that the vast majority of gun owners are conscientious, considerate, friendly, and helpful people. It's rare for me to be at the NRA range with one or more of my friends, and not get into a discussion with the person in the lane next to us, discussing the unique firearms we've shot (and sometimes getting to try out something that is new or different).

Another reason I've come to love firearms is through researching my family history. My grandfathers (two biological and one step-grandfather) all served in World War II (two in the Navy, and the third in the Army). I have set a goal to collect exemplars of as many of the firearms that they would have used or carried as a way to better understand some of what they went through. My father's biological father went on to be a police officer after the War, and I would love to have a copy of the gun that he carried in the course of his duty. We have records suggesting that my great-great-grandfather (for whom my younger son is named) regularly served as a member of the marshal's posse in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), and I have been researching to try and find out what sort of guns he would have used so I can collect exemplars of those as well. I have in my safe other guns tied to family history, like my grandmother's bolt-action 20-gauge shotgun.

I hear many of you talk about the gun culture in the US, and what you describe is not what I have seen with my own eyes. As with most groups, the real problems come from a tiny percentage of the people, and those outside the group generally only hear about that small percentage. The vast majority of gun owners are not the criminals who are engaging in shootouts on the South Side of Chicago, or conducting drive-by shootings in Baltimore. They are the people who own guns for hunting, target shooting, family history, and yes, even self-defense. They are by and far responsible and extremely concerned with safety. They are respectful, and eager to teach people, rather than just berate or humiliate them for their mistakes.

Those are the people that most gun control proposals would treat like criminals. Can you perhaps see why many of them (including me) might take issue with those proposals?

 

Ah, my favourite Foo Fighters song.

 

I didn't say anything about licenses. Every year a person has to go to the DMV to check in and get tags. I want every gun owner to check in every year with every gun they own and pay for it. And again, one is a weapon, one is not.

And that right should be different because it is a gun.

 

Except, as I pointed out, not all cars need to be registered. Registration of a car is only required for it to be used on public roads. If the car isn't street legal (such as a race car) or isn't going to be used on public roads (such as a farm vehicle), there is no legal requirement to register it or pay any sort of yearly fee. You can even move the car from one place to another using public roads as long as it isn't being drive (such as on a trailer).

Moreover, what you are basically arguing for is the equivalent of a poll tax on voting. "You can have the right to vote, but I want every voter to check in and pay for it." Rights don't work that way. If the government can't outlaw your exercise of a right, they can't encumber it with large taxes or fees either.

Minnesota tried to do that in the 1970s with newspapers, creating a specific use tax on paper and ink, but exempting the first $100,000 of those supplies from the tax. The Star Tribune fought the tax, and it was ruled an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. Louisiana tried a similar scheme in the 1930s, and that was ruled unconstitutional for the same reason.

The principle is the same for other fundamental rights. The government cannot use its regulatory power to significantly restrict a fundamental right.

When the Second Amendment was ratified, everyone knew what a gun was and the dangers associated with the right to keep and bear arms. By ratifying the Amendment, they accepted that risk for themselves and future generations, just like they accepted the risks associated with free speech, privacy, and due process. You can't just turn around now and say "but it's a gun", and act like that makes it different from the rest of the Constitution. If you want to change the enumerated right, then get an amendment passed and ratified. Don't act like the Second Amendment isn't actually part of the Constitution just because you don't like it.

 

When the Second Amendment was ratified, it was 1797. They knew the dangers but they also didn't have half the weapons we have today. It took anywhere from 20 seconds to 6 minutes to load an 18th century firearm. They didn't accept it with the knowledge that people would have such deadly weapons in 200 years.

Plus, it was necessary for citizens to defend themselves from much larger threats.

There's also the debate of what was actually meant by that amendment. It seems to imply either they have the right to bear arms OR that a well armed military was required, and citizens were part of that...so they had the right to bear arms.
The other thing is that England also had laws allowing citizens to bear arms at that point, so it was (supposedly) an extension of that. Almost everyone else has already changed those laws. Why does the US still need them?

It's time for it to go. I think we all acknowledge it's a right that exists, but most of us think there's no longer a place for it.

 

I'm sure you mean the Foo Founders